Re: g++ 2.95 typeinfo::name()

[Dima Volodin <dvv at egcs dot dvv dot ru>]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:45:59 -0600, you wrote:

>Dima Volodin wrote:
>
>>>And users shouldn't claim the compiler has a bug when it just
>>>implements an implementation-defined semantics the way it thinks
>>>useful for its purposes.
>
>And compiler authors should remember that compilers exist to support users,
>not to give the maintainers something to do.
>
>>And adding some "useful semantics" not defined in the standard to
>>standard features is asking for exactly this type of claims.
>
>I'm sorry; maybe I'm missing something.  I thought the discussion was about
>a *required* function with undefined semantics.  It seems to me that there
>has to be some kind of deterministic behavior.  If this behavior exists,
>what is wrong with documenting it?

Nothing wrong with documenting it. More than that - if you make this
behavior deterministic beyond the scope of the standard, you really want
to not just document it, but also to put considerable effort into making
the compiler detect uses of this determinism and warn the user about all
detected attempts. Then it will be real user support.


Anyway, why would anyone want to compare type_info::name() strings?
What's wrong with typeid()?

>>Dima
>Jon Cast

Dima